[hyperdunc]

Terrorism is less likely to remain a low-probability event because it contains the intention of death spurred by a toxic ideology that wishes to spread.

The comparisons given are accidents and happen through negligence or plain bad luck.

[aswanson]

If your premise is true that it will grow because it wishes to spread, then why has it empirically remained constant? Why isnt it more successful every year as it pushes growth?

[hyperdunc]

It has the strong potential to grow but right now there are enough people opposing its spread.

Even so, terrorism may have cumulative political and social effects. People don't like to know there are others out there who wish them harm. Once a certain threshold of resentment is reached within an affected society then suddenly massive unrest could erupt.

Some politicians are trying to mitigate this by suggesting we should just get used to the occasional terrorist attack and treat it like a lightning strike or a piece of heavy furniture falling over.

[aswanson]

You must not live in the us. Every politician here is hyping the threat well beyond proportion to the life loss potential. But humans are irrational and scare prone, so why not exploit the cognitive bug, for votes and profit?

[hyperdunc]

Yes, it's hardly surprising that some people use the threat of terrorism for personal gain.